Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Charles Kanjama: It is a groundbreaking ruling because it is breaking new ground. It is a ruling that, in my view, takes the country a bit backwards on issues of public participation. Personally, I am a bit disappointed on that issue, and I feel that on some of the... show more

Citizen TV Kenya

6,850,058 subscribers

14,632 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Charles Kanjama: Normally, when a right to fair trial or fair hearing is infringed, you invalidate the hearing, you set it aside, or you order a new trial. This is the first time in my experience as a lawyer that the court has made a clear finding that the right to a fair trial was substantively violated but has failed to reverse the underlying outcome of that fair trial. The court said our hands are tied because impeachment is final; we cannot undo it. The court at that time said we can overturn the outcome of the impeachment, but today it has said once the impeachment is done, it cannot be overturned. There is a lot of inconsistency in the decision of the court #CitizenMondayReport

Charles Kanjama: Normally, when a right to fair trial or fair hearing is infringed, you invalidate the hearing, you set it aside, or you order a new trial. This is the first time in my experience as a lawyer that the court has made a clear finding that the right to a fair trial was substantively violated but has failed to reverse the underlying outcome of that fair trial. The court said our hands are tied because impeachment is final; we cannot undo it. The court at that time said we can overturn the outcome of the impeachment, but today it has said once the impeachment is done, it cannot be overturned. There is a lot of inconsistency in the decision of the court #CitizenMondayReport

Citizen TV Kenya

121,767 views • 1 month ago

BREAKING: The home secretary says she is "disappointed" by a High Court ruling that Palestine Action's prescription as a terrorist organisation was unlawful on two grounds. Shabana Mahmood said she intended to fight the judgement in the Court of Appeal.

BREAKING: The home secretary says she is "disappointed" by a High Court ruling that Palestine Action's prescription as a terrorist organisation was unlawful on two grounds. Shabana Mahmood said she intended to fight the judgement in the Court of Appeal.

Sky News

90,460 views • 5 months ago

.President Donald J. Trump: "Because of the mail-in ballot ruling, which was a little bit surprising... the [SAVE America Act] is even more important... the ruling, which a lot of people were waiting for, that was a ruling that was—I think it was very detrimental to honest elections."

.President Donald J. Trump: "Because of the mail-in ballot ruling, which was a little bit surprising... the [SAVE America Act] is even more important... the ruling, which a lot of people were waiting for, that was a ruling that was—I think it was very detrimental to honest elections."

Rapid Response 47

174,295 views • 15 days ago

BREAKING: Judge Brian Cregan refuses to give key ruling but instead directs school to prepare fresh imprisonment and sequestration papers At last week’s hearing, Enoch Burke had submitted that due to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in July this year, the Order of the High Court upholding his suspension was no longer enforceable. The Court of Appeal ruled in July that the principal’s instruction to call a child “they” is a “a kernel” of the case and must be examined for its legitimacy. Judge Cregan had said that his ruling on this issue would be delivered by today. Instead, turning a blind eye to the Court of Appeal judgment, Judge Cregan opened proceedings today by directing the school to prepare fresh papers for the attachment and committal to prison of Enoch Burke and seizure of cars. Dark days in Irish Courts.

BREAKING: Judge Brian Cregan refuses to give key ruling but instead directs school to prepare fresh imprisonment and sequestration papers At last week’s hearing, Enoch Burke had submitted that due to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in July this year, the Order of the High Court upholding his suspension was no longer enforceable. The Court of Appeal ruled in July that the principal’s instruction to call a child “they” is a “a kernel” of the case and must be examined for its legitimacy. Judge Cregan had said that his ruling on this issue would be delivered by today. Instead, turning a blind eye to the Court of Appeal judgment, Judge Cregan opened proceedings today by directing the school to prepare fresh papers for the attachment and committal to prison of Enoch Burke and seizure of cars. Dark days in Irish Courts.

Enoch Burke

293,829 views • 8 months ago

"I feel a bit sad that he's in that situation, I don't think anyone wants to be doorstopped out the front of court." Kane Cornes on Warren Tredrea's court case 👇

"I feel a bit sad that he's in that situation, I don't think anyone wants to be doorstopped out the front of court." Kane Cornes on Warren Tredrea's court case 👇

7AFL

85,361 views • 1 year ago

VIDEO Democratic Front (DF) president Mathias Mpuuga on #TheGrindPodcast with Patrick Kamara 933 KFM: 1. "...I am an active politician, I have moved in every inch and space of this country. I know where his [General Yoweri Museveni support is, it is not 71% it is not even 50%, and he knows it too." 2. "I am on record before and after the elections for having spoken out. I went out of my way and wrote to every political party in the opposition, warning and inviting them for a commonality of purpose...Immediately after the elections, I held a press conference spoke about the same issues, I had warned colleagues about that we never cared about and they happened. So, I feel that I am vindicated to the fact that I raised the alarm. Those who didn’t care, there is no much I could do to drag them." 3. "Also I could have raised the challenge about that election in the supreme court, but I was not a presidential candidate and I did not have permission to raise the same on behalf of any candidate. Remember that in one of the amendments that I had intended in the presidential elections act probably out of ignorance or excitement, was to amend the law to the fact that a citizen can challenge the election in a supreme court as long as that citizen is a voter and there is a proof that his challenge is not a waste of court’s time. I had intended that when that happens when presidential candidates are either compromised or timid, a courageous citizen can challenge that election. That didn’t happen, and the opportunity was lost." 4. "What have I done as DF? The DF is is going to challenge particular actions leading to that election and our petition to the Constitutional court is ready, if you want to know how we have moved and that we are not sleeping as the DF." #RealChangeActNow

VIDEO Democratic Front (DF) president Mathias Mpuuga on #TheGrindPodcast with Patrick Kamara 933 KFM: 1. "...I am an active politician, I have moved in every inch and space of this country. I know where his [General Yoweri Museveni support is, it is not 71% it is not even 50%, and he knows it too." 2. "I am on record before and after the elections for having spoken out. I went out of my way and wrote to every political party in the opposition, warning and inviting them for a commonality of purpose...Immediately after the elections, I held a press conference spoke about the same issues, I had warned colleagues about that we never cared about and they happened. So, I feel that I am vindicated to the fact that I raised the alarm. Those who didn’t care, there is no much I could do to drag them." 3. "Also I could have raised the challenge about that election in the supreme court, but I was not a presidential candidate and I did not have permission to raise the same on behalf of any candidate. Remember that in one of the amendments that I had intended in the presidential elections act probably out of ignorance or excitement, was to amend the law to the fact that a citizen can challenge the election in a supreme court as long as that citizen is a voter and there is a proof that his challenge is not a waste of court’s time. I had intended that when that happens when presidential candidates are either compromised or timid, a courageous citizen can challenge that election. That didn’t happen, and the opportunity was lost." 4. "What have I done as DF? The DF is is going to challenge particular actions leading to that election and our petition to the Constitutional court is ready, if you want to know how we have moved and that we are not sleeping as the DF." #RealChangeActNow

Democratic Front (DF)

20,810 views • 3 months ago

BREAKING: ENOCH BURKE SAYS APPEAL OF HIS DISMISSAL SHOULD NOT PROCEED THIS SATURDAY Teacher Enoch Burke's appeal of his dismissal from Wilson's Hospital School is due to be heard by the Department of Education this Saturday, 13 December. Enoch Burke will speak in court tomorrow. He will argue that the Supreme Court must address the issue of conflicting Court of Appeal judgments in his case before the Department of Education hears his appeal. It is imperative in the interests of justice that this issue be resolved. A three-member division of the Court of Appeal today granted an order that Enoch Burke appear in person before them tomorrow at 2:30pm to apply that this hearing be postponed. There are conflicting judgments of the Court of Appeal regarding the critical question of why Enoch Burke was disciplined by Wilson's Hospital School. This is an extremely serious matter as the school’s Board of Management is relying heavily on a flawed judgment for Saturday's hearing. The Department of Education hearing should not proceed while this matter is unresolved. One judgment from 2023, written by Mr Justice John Edwards, contains the extraordinarily false assertion that "there is no evidence whatever" that Enoch Burke's suspension was because of his views on transgenderism or his refusal to comply with the principal's instruction to call a child "they". Mr Justice Edwards, on foot of this, stated that the constitutional rights to freedom of religion and freedom of conscience are "not engaged" i.e. not relevant to Enoch Burke's case. As stated previously, the Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School are relying heavily on this flawed judgment for Saturday's hearing. In a later Court of Appeal judgment in 2025, Ms Justice Mary Faherty ruled, on the contrary, that the principal's instruction is "a kernel" of the disciplinary proceedings against Enoch Burke. She stated: "In my view, any reasonable reader of the principal’s report would understand that the principal considered her overarching complaint against the appellant to fall under the heading of refusal to comply with a legitimate instruction resulting in serious consequences, as provided for in the Circular". Notwithstanding this, the second Court of Appeal did not correct the errors of the first Court of Appeal and was unwilling to state that the findings of Mr Justice John Edwards are wrong. Enoch Burke has appealed this issue to the Supreme Court. The Department of Education hearing should not proceed until the Supreme Court hears this case and makes its ruling. Justice must be done.

BREAKING: ENOCH BURKE SAYS APPEAL OF HIS DISMISSAL SHOULD NOT PROCEED THIS SATURDAY Teacher Enoch Burke's appeal of his dismissal from Wilson's Hospital School is due to be heard by the Department of Education this Saturday, 13 December. Enoch Burke will speak in court tomorrow. He will argue that the Supreme Court must address the issue of conflicting Court of Appeal judgments in his case before the Department of Education hears his appeal. It is imperative in the interests of justice that this issue be resolved. A three-member division of the Court of Appeal today granted an order that Enoch Burke appear in person before them tomorrow at 2:30pm to apply that this hearing be postponed. There are conflicting judgments of the Court of Appeal regarding the critical question of why Enoch Burke was disciplined by Wilson's Hospital School. This is an extremely serious matter as the school’s Board of Management is relying heavily on a flawed judgment for Saturday's hearing. The Department of Education hearing should not proceed while this matter is unresolved. One judgment from 2023, written by Mr Justice John Edwards, contains the extraordinarily false assertion that "there is no evidence whatever" that Enoch Burke's suspension was because of his views on transgenderism or his refusal to comply with the principal's instruction to call a child "they". Mr Justice Edwards, on foot of this, stated that the constitutional rights to freedom of religion and freedom of conscience are "not engaged" i.e. not relevant to Enoch Burke's case. As stated previously, the Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School are relying heavily on this flawed judgment for Saturday's hearing. In a later Court of Appeal judgment in 2025, Ms Justice Mary Faherty ruled, on the contrary, that the principal's instruction is "a kernel" of the disciplinary proceedings against Enoch Burke. She stated: "In my view, any reasonable reader of the principal’s report would understand that the principal considered her overarching complaint against the appellant to fall under the heading of refusal to comply with a legitimate instruction resulting in serious consequences, as provided for in the Circular". Notwithstanding this, the second Court of Appeal did not correct the errors of the first Court of Appeal and was unwilling to state that the findings of Mr Justice John Edwards are wrong. Enoch Burke has appealed this issue to the Supreme Court. The Department of Education hearing should not proceed until the Supreme Court hears this case and makes its ruling. Justice must be done.

Enoch Burke

148,635 views • 7 months ago

In a Constitutional democracy the last line of defence is the Constitutional Court. When the apex court appears to lack independence and takes over 500 days to issue a ruling on a simple case pertaining to the failure of Parliament to oversee the Executive, the social contract that keeps the country together is under threat.

In a Constitutional democracy the last line of defence is the Constitutional Court. When the apex court appears to lack independence and takes over 500 days to issue a ruling on a simple case pertaining to the failure of Parliament to oversee the Executive, the social contract that keeps the country together is under threat.

Vuyo Zungula MP 🇿🇦

15,798 views • 3 months ago

A sickening attempt is being made to discredit the Ayodhya judgment. Praying to God for a solution does not mean that the solution was provided by God. The only friend of justice is evidence. And evidence it was that prevailed in the Supreme court Ayodhya judgment. My views:

A sickening attempt is being made to discredit the Ayodhya judgment. Praying to God for a solution does not mean that the solution was provided by God. The only friend of justice is evidence. And evidence it was that prevailed in the Supreme court Ayodhya judgment. My views:

Anand Ranganathan

205,924 views • 1 year ago

Scott Jennings takes a moment to remind the CNN panel of the one thing the Supreme Court ruling proved today. It completely SHATTERED a multi-year Democrat narrative. Scott Jennings: “And I’ll tell you one more thing.” “For every Democrat and every media person that has gone on for the last year or two about how this Supreme Court is a wholly owned subsidiary of Donald Trump, that it’s not independent, that it does whatever he says to do…” “Obviously, that narrative was OBLITERATED today.” “So to me, I thought this was actually…I thought the ruling was sound.” “I think the president is sound to try other statutes.” “And I think the narratives about the court not being independent and the president not obeying the court were TOTALLY blown up today.”

Scott Jennings takes a moment to remind the CNN panel of the one thing the Supreme Court ruling proved today. It completely SHATTERED a multi-year Democrat narrative. Scott Jennings: “And I’ll tell you one more thing.” “For every Democrat and every media person that has gone on for the last year or two about how this Supreme Court is a wholly owned subsidiary of Donald Trump, that it’s not independent, that it does whatever he says to do…” “Obviously, that narrative was OBLITERATED today.” “So to me, I thought this was actually…I thought the ruling was sound.” “I think the president is sound to try other statutes.” “And I think the narratives about the court not being independent and the president not obeying the court were TOTALLY blown up today.”

Overton

457,122 views • 4 months ago

BREAKING: President Trump just spoke with Fox's Bret Baier on the phone ahead of his address to the nation on what's happening with Iran: "He is very pleased with how things are going, obviously is disheartened about the loss of life." "He said that as far as a plan, they do have a plan, always had a plan. The intelligence, the level of intelligence that they've had up until this point is truly amazing." "I asked, so what you're saying is that you know there is somebody on the ground in Iran that is going to rise up?" Trump quote: "Yeah, I feel there is. I feel that, and some of them are no longer with us, to be honest, because it was 49 leaders that were taken out."

BREAKING: President Trump just spoke with Fox's Bret Baier on the phone ahead of his address to the nation on what's happening with Iran: "He is very pleased with how things are going, obviously is disheartened about the loss of life." "He said that as far as a plan, they do have a plan, always had a plan. The intelligence, the level of intelligence that they've had up until this point is truly amazing." "I asked, so what you're saying is that you know there is somebody on the ground in Iran that is going to rise up?" Trump quote: "Yeah, I feel there is. I feel that, and some of them are no longer with us, to be honest, because it was 49 leaders that were taken out."

Gunther Eagleman™

60,870 views • 4 months ago

🚨"I worry about Burnham on trans issues, he'll frame it as a CULTURE WAR" Sex Matters' Helen Joyce claims that Labour are trying to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman and that Starmer is trying to help circumvent the ruling. Helen Joyce | Julia Hartley-Brewer

🚨"I worry about Burnham on trans issues, he'll frame it as a CULTURE WAR" Sex Matters' Helen Joyce claims that Labour are trying to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman and that Starmer is trying to help circumvent the ruling. Helen Joyce | Julia Hartley-Brewer

Talk

26,306 views • 13 days ago

Damian Lillard on mentoring Scoot Henderson: "Neither one of us going to be on the court for a little bit so it will definitely create that window of opportunity for us to have a lot more dialogue... As a young PG, I know the desire. I've been there to want more for yourself... I know that I can help take some of that weight off his shoulders by just sharing information that I know is a fact."

Damian Lillard on mentoring Scoot Henderson: "Neither one of us going to be on the court for a little bit so it will definitely create that window of opportunity for us to have a lot more dialogue... As a young PG, I know the desire. I've been there to want more for yourself... I know that I can help take some of that weight off his shoulders by just sharing information that I know is a fact."

Brenna Greene

243,931 views • 9 months ago

#WATCH | Delhi: On AAP national convener Arvind Kejriwal's letter to Delhi High Court Chief Justice, Sacchin Puri, Advocate & Vice President Of Delhi High Court Bar Association says, "I believe that this is not correct. It is politicising the entire issue. The judgment has come. If you don't agree with the judgment, you have a remedy to appeal or revision or as the case may be. But to issue this kind of a letter in which you are acknowledging the fact that I have a right to appeal and without prejudice, I'm writing this to those rights, then you are taking the system on and saying today that you are bringing the prestige of the system down. It is not acceptable. There was no reason for such a letter to be posted in the public domain. You had a right which was right to appeal or revision. You should have exercised that. This is only scandalising the entire issue and trying to put pressure indirectly or directly on the judicial system."

#WATCH | Delhi: On AAP national convener Arvind Kejriwal's letter to Delhi High Court Chief Justice, Sacchin Puri, Advocate & Vice President Of Delhi High Court Bar Association says, "I believe that this is not correct. It is politicising the entire issue. The judgment has come. If you don't agree with the judgment, you have a remedy to appeal or revision or as the case may be. But to issue this kind of a letter in which you are acknowledging the fact that I have a right to appeal and without prejudice, I'm writing this to those rights, then you are taking the system on and saying today that you are bringing the prestige of the system down. It is not acceptable. There was no reason for such a letter to be posted in the public domain. You had a right which was right to appeal or revision. You should have exercised that. This is only scandalising the entire issue and trying to put pressure indirectly or directly on the judicial system."

ANI

46,793 views • 2 months ago

Is the Supreme Court ruling on the impeachment of Sara Zimmerman Duterte based on erroneous facts? I was there! I didn’t miss the chance to witness history — I can say for a fact that the ruling of the Supreme Court was based on erroneous facts and anyone can check it via the Livestream of the House of Representatives that day. February 5, 2025. One of the things which concerns me here is the additional requirement that came out of nowhere— not in the 1987 Constitution and not even in the existing ruling of the Supreme Court. Speaker Martin Romualdez in an interview yesterday said that the House of Representatives followed the existing precedent also from the Supreme Court — the Francisco and Gutierrez ruling. How can the House follow something that doesn’t exist during that time? Please make sense. Atty. Princess Abante released an explainer video explaining the factual truth about what transpired in the House of Representatives on February 5. Aside from the House Journal and official reports, the public can easily check the livestream of the House of Representatives. I don’t care if the Supreme Court ruling was written by an Aquino appointee because it doesn’t make sense to me at all! Please take time to watch the video — Atty. Abante was able to explain the side of the House of Representatives. Also, why would the Supreme Court put more weight to a news article versus an official journal and actually videos? Now, please tell me… How can we just trust the decision of the Supreme Court?

Is the Supreme Court ruling on the impeachment of Sara Zimmerman Duterte based on erroneous facts? I was there! I didn’t miss the chance to witness history — I can say for a fact that the ruling of the Supreme Court was based on erroneous facts and anyone can check it via the Livestream of the House of Representatives that day. February 5, 2025. One of the things which concerns me here is the additional requirement that came out of nowhere— not in the 1987 Constitution and not even in the existing ruling of the Supreme Court. Speaker Martin Romualdez in an interview yesterday said that the House of Representatives followed the existing precedent also from the Supreme Court — the Francisco and Gutierrez ruling. How can the House follow something that doesn’t exist during that time? Please make sense. Atty. Princess Abante released an explainer video explaining the factual truth about what transpired in the House of Representatives on February 5. Aside from the House Journal and official reports, the public can easily check the livestream of the House of Representatives. I don’t care if the Supreme Court ruling was written by an Aquino appointee because it doesn’t make sense to me at all! Please take time to watch the video — Atty. Abante was able to explain the side of the House of Representatives. Also, why would the Supreme Court put more weight to a news article versus an official journal and actually videos? Now, please tell me… How can we just trust the decision of the Supreme Court?

Just

36,043 views • 11 months ago

STATEMENT FROM THE LABOUR PARTY Abure rejects Appeal Court decision, Heads to Supreme Court Excerpt of his statement. We have seen what transpired today at the Appeal Court and we want to say very clearly that the judgement is not acceptable to all of us in the Labour Party led by my humble self. I want to say very clearly that the judgement is against all known principles of law. The courts, the Supreme Courts and all courts in Nigeria have stated very clearly that the issues of leadership of a political party is an internal affairs of a political party. It is also not true and I disagree when people say that the tenure of this executive has expired. That is untrue and very unacceptable to us. Nigerians will recall that on the 27th of March 2024, we had a valid convention that was held in Nnewi and that convention is still valid and subsisting for 4 years. I want to say that the court today didn't look at that before arriving at the conclusion that the tenure has expired. I must also say clearly that the Umuahia meeting which produced the Caretaker Committee was also against the Labour Party constitution. It is only the National Chairman and National Secretary of a Political Party who has the power to convene any NEC meeting of any of sort. I want to say very clearly that we are going to appeal that decision. Today's decision of the Appeal Court is not acceptable to us and we reject it in its entirety. We have put our legal team together and we are going to file an appeal and move to the Supreme Court. Thank you and God bless you. Sign: Barrister Julius Abure National Chairman Labour Party. 21/04/2026

STATEMENT FROM THE LABOUR PARTY Abure rejects Appeal Court decision, Heads to Supreme Court Excerpt of his statement. We have seen what transpired today at the Appeal Court and we want to say very clearly that the judgement is not acceptable to all of us in the Labour Party led by my humble self. I want to say very clearly that the judgement is against all known principles of law. The courts, the Supreme Courts and all courts in Nigeria have stated very clearly that the issues of leadership of a political party is an internal affairs of a political party. It is also not true and I disagree when people say that the tenure of this executive has expired. That is untrue and very unacceptable to us. Nigerians will recall that on the 27th of March 2024, we had a valid convention that was held in Nnewi and that convention is still valid and subsisting for 4 years. I want to say that the court today didn't look at that before arriving at the conclusion that the tenure has expired. I must also say clearly that the Umuahia meeting which produced the Caretaker Committee was also against the Labour Party constitution. It is only the National Chairman and National Secretary of a Political Party who has the power to convene any NEC meeting of any of sort. I want to say very clearly that we are going to appeal that decision. Today's decision of the Appeal Court is not acceptable to us and we reject it in its entirety. We have put our legal team together and we are going to file an appeal and move to the Supreme Court. Thank you and God bless you. Sign: Barrister Julius Abure National Chairman Labour Party. 21/04/2026

LabourPartyNG

41,506 views • 2 months ago

'I’m not going to give you a straight answer on that.' Lib Dem MP Wendy Chamberlain refuses to say whether a woman can have a penis, calling it 'a bit of a gotcha' question. Pressed on the Supreme Court ruling, she says: 'I respect the ruling'

'I’m not going to give you a straight answer on that.' Lib Dem MP Wendy Chamberlain refuses to say whether a woman can have a penis, calling it 'a bit of a gotcha' question. Pressed on the Supreme Court ruling, she says: 'I respect the ruling'

GB News

137,601 views • 9 months ago